Hands up if you know where Jennylovelips thread about her nasty boss has gone? It was just getting interesting. A bit uncalled for as the press report was clearly in the public domain. Surely there can't be a Moderator flapping about his MBE - it'll be about now that they are putting the Birthday Honours List together!!

posted it again and it was deleted and asked the same.
however back on topic: : at least tell us why it was taken off...twice

Sunday Express

March 6, 2005

SECTION: U.K. 1st Edition; NEWS; Pg. 6, 8

BYLINE: By Tim Shipman Defence Editor

BODY:
TONY BLAIR has been briefed about a court case that threatens to rock the Army with new claims about systematic bullying by some of its senior officers.

Defence chiefs were so worried by the explosive allegations - which also accuse a brigadier of fraud - they were forced to provide the Prime Minister with a full report in case he faced questions in the House of Commons.

E-mails between press officials in the Ministry of Defence show that Mr Blair was warned that Corporal Paul Biddiss of the Parachute Regiment was threatening to expose what he says is a coverup of vindictive behaviour he blames for the plight of his disabled son Chandler.

Last week Corporal Biddiss launched a case in the High Court that could lead to hundreds of lawsuits from soldiers who claim they have been mistreated.

The 18-page court papers, obtained by the Sunday Express, expose a catalogue of alleged abuse which, if proved, will lead to an overhaul of the Army's complaints procedures, already under fire after complaints from the families of recruits who died at Deepcut barracks.

Paul's problems began in autumn 1999. At that time he had served in the Army for 11 years and the court papers say "he had recently been accepted for SAS selection by his Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Kennett" who is now a brigadier.

Paul, 36, had been rated among the top third of lance corporals in his platoon that July. Life was good and his wife Debbie, who is now 39, was due to have her fifth child in January 2000.

But Debbie had a history of premature births and had lost another baby a year earlier. The couple's midwife wrote to Lieutenant Colonel Kennett, before he was promoted to brigadier, warning him that Paul's wife would have no one to help her if she went into hospital because her husband had been posted to Northern Ireland.

But, it is alleged, instead of helping him another superior officer, a Major Nott, had told Paul he would be subject to a process called manning control.

This is used to discharge "failing" soldiers after 12 years' service. Critics say it is a cost-cutting measure to save the expense of service pensions.

Paul was amazed that Nott had apparently failed to follow the rules which say he should be warned a year in advance that he would be subject to manning control.

The court papers say: "Major Nott did not provide Paul with a mandatory warning required. Neither was he interviewed, which is a further requirement of the above procedure. He was instructed to sign a new "S type" employment contract, or he would be made to leave, which effectively gave him only a further three years in the armed forces. Paul refused to sign this document. His application to see his Commanding Officer Kennett was denied.

"Major Nott made repeated attempts to get Paul to sign this documentation but he continued to refuse."

Paul, now worried for Debbie's health, asked for his Northern Ireland, posting to be shelved. Nott finally agreed to this on December 3 1999. The next day Debbie went into labour. And Paul's life began to fall apart.

Chandler was born prematurely and was eventually allowed home but was still registered as a child at risk.

Paul was then sent back to Northern Ireland against advice given to the families officer, Captain R Parry. While away, Chandler contracted meningitis and became critically ill. He suffered severe disability including cerebral palsy, epilepsy and partial blindness.

But, the court papers say, Nott would not let Paul return home for four days, adding: "He used this period to exert even stronger pressure on Paul to sign the S-type agreement which would lead to his immediate return home."

In effect, Paul was being blackmailed - sign the document and you can see your son.

Debbie told the Sunday Express: "I was left alone. The Army were told that Chandler was a child at risk. The padre was told, the families officer was told, but they ignored the advice and left me with Chandler on my own, with four boys to look after, a mile-and-a-half from the nearest shops."

SHE ADDED: "The Army didn't do anything because they had another agenda.

When he was born they knew he was at risk. When he was admitted to hospital they knew he was ill and that I was depressed, but they didn't care."

Eventually, in February 2000 Paul was allowed compassionate leave for 10 months. But in a meeting with Kennett, matters took a sinister twist.

Kennett, the court papers say, produced a document to suggest that he interviewed Paul about manning control back in November 1999.

Paul claims he has proof that the format of that document was not in use until February - in effect that Kennett forged the document to hide the fact that the correct procedures had not been followed.

Paul appealed the decision to effectively end his Army career. In May 2000 he was reinstated, but he filed a formal complaint with the Army redress system. In December 2000 he was promoted to Corporal.

BUT JUSTICE in the Army is a slow process. This took four years and Paul was forced to initiate proceedings on three occasions. All the while Debbie was suffering from depression and the couple had to wrestle with Chandler's deteriorating health.

In January 2003, Paul and Debbie received a message of support from Prince Charles, the Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment.

He wrote: "I wanted to write to send my heartfelt best wishes.

When I think of the dreadful ordeal that your small son Chandler has gone through in his short life, it brings seemingly important problems of one's own life firmly into perspective."

But to Paul, there appeared to be no sympathy from the Army. He said the redress system involved "no pro-active investigation".

It eventually found "some reservations on the length of time it took to repatriate Corporal Biddiss from Northern Ireland to his home", but cleared Nott, who then left the Army.

An investigation by the Army Board, which is also under scrutiny, "was slow and seemingly carried out without any urgency" say the filed court papers. Last October Paul's complaints were finally thrown out.

His claim seeks compensation, to overhaul the Army Board and the redress system and to outlaw manning control. It concludes:

"The actions of the armed forces and in particular Major Nott has caused his family and himself physical, mental and financial hardships.

"The harassment and bullying conducted by members of the armed forces in threatening an end to his career impacted upon the physical and mental condition of his son Chandler and the consequent illness suffered by his wife.

Instead of receiving support, Paul was victimised and attempts were made to foreshorten his career."

Debbie said: "I'm disgusted with the Army for the way they've treated me and my family. I gave up a career as a seamstress to be with Paul. I travelled away from my family to be with him and this is how the Army repay us.

"I am completely disgusted that they haven't got the guts and the moral courage to admit when they got it wrong. I am so proud of Paul because he has done something that other men wouldn't do and he has stuck with it. His friends and fellow soldiers didn't want to be seen talking to him because they feared it would effect their careers.

"If the Army could just give us a pill to make Chandler walk again we would go away tomorrow. The money has never been important, we just want them to admit they were wrong."

The Ministry of Defence issued a statement on behalf of Brigadier Kennett: "I cannot recall all of the details of Corporal Biddiss's case because it was nearly five years ago.

"However I do remember Corporal Biddiss faced very difficult family circumstances at the time, for which he has always had my utmost sympathy. The case has recently been reviewed again by a senior officer who was satisfied that there had been no wrongdoing on my part."

An MoD spokesman said: "The MoD is resisting the application for judicial review. The Army is satisfied that Corporal Biddiss's allegations have been thoroughly investigated on a number of occasions, " he said.

HEADDED: "The latest review by a senior officer did not find any wrongdoing on the part of Brigadier Kennett or on the part of anyone else."

Paul is now doing a desk job with 1 Para. He has paid out of his own pocket to employ barrister John Cooper, who is representing the Deepcut families and is taking a caseload of actions for mistreatment against the MoD.

'........justice in the Army is a slow process......'. Not as far as Courts Martials are concerned but if it's a redress, it more than certainly will be, the aim being to wear you down and demoralise you until you withdraw your redress.

The aforementioned brigadier was supposed to be taking up a new post from, appropriately enough, April 1. Now it's all gone suddenly quiet. Anyone know what's happened? Has he been sent on gardening leave?

I still want to know why the post about him was removed. is it because he is an Officer and its not very nice news? has the dark side set into ARRSE that much? twice this story was posted and twice it was removed. guilty or innocent he is in the public eye. who will be his next boss???? if true
as was said before to fat lips
Brigadier, 1 mech search.....top of the pagehttp://www.channel4.com/news/2005/03/week_1/03_army_t.html

jimmys_best_mate

So Kennet was as much of a tosser as a Lt Col as he is as a Brig then?

1. While the story is in the public domain, some of the stuff in the thread wasn't and I didn't want to edit a number of posts

2. It named names and identified things that are not in the public domain

3. If you want to run around telling tales about your boss on the internet then I don't care if you end up on the wrong end of an interview without coffee, but I don't want this site to be linked with any later claims of libel.

1. While the story is in the public domain, some of the stuff in the thread wasn't and I didn't want to edit a number of posts

2. It named names and identified things that are not in the public domain

3. If you want to run around telling tales about your boss on the internet then I don't care if you end up on the wrong end of an interview without coffee, but I don't want this site to be linked with any later claims of libel.

Gossip - fine (so long as it doesn't humiliate or identify an individual),
Linking something in the press - fine
Discussing opinions about events- fine
Hiding behind anonymity to publicly identify and slag your boss off - NOT fine.

I don't take a heavy handed approach to moderation, but there are limits and it's not a democracy. I have the wider interests of the site to consider, and exposing it to the threat of libel or closure is not something I take lightly. As the moderator of this forum I take care to be consistent, but ultimately my say is final and if that is a constraint some users find unbearable then you are free to frequent any other site on the internet.

Last week DELETED BY MOD and DELETED BY MOD went to DELETED BY MOD in order to DELETED BY MOD . Nobody knew exactly why they had gone there at that time but as this unit was in DELETED BY MOD but ut was suspected all along that they had been having DELETED BY MOD all along. His wife and her husband were both made aware of what was happing but it was all too late because DELETED BY MOD had already spoken to Brig DELETED BY MOD .

to right.
but I do agree if its not in the public domain don't stick it up. however I feel there is no smoke with out fire on this story and there could be more dirt on this subject and not just for one officer if it gets to a High Court and found not in the Army's favour we are not having much luck on that score are we after the defence select. if Bliar is getting the word on this and with an election just round the corner we could be more then just a brigadier short me thinks

You can easily tell by the actions accredited to some of the people slagged off on this site that they are complete twonks! It is not beyond imagination that if one of them knew he/she was having it ripped out of them on this site they would have it closed or more probably access at work (where I think quite a few of us access the site) removed. These people have no sense of humour and are so career driven they wouldn't hesitate.

That said I remember this case a bit, senior officers investigating serving senior officers are less likely to find fault than a Government appoint inquiry finding fault with the Govt.